"The competence centers which are the only ones who diagnose [condition] are already overloaded and have long wait times. Sending more patients would make it worse."
Why They Say It
Genuine concern about infrastructure. Also a deflection -- if diagnosis is bottlenecked, why invest in finding more patients? Often from medical affairs or market access mindset, not commercial.
Optimal Response
Reframe: Patient Finder relieves the bottleneck, not adds to it. Intelligent triage filters out low-probability patients before referral. Centers see fewer but better-qualified patients. Wait times improve.
Decentralize diagnosis. Many conditions (e.g., ATTR-CM via Gillmore criteria) can now be diagnosed outside specialist centers using standard imaging + blood tests. Patient Finder navigates to the nearest capable facility, not just competence centers.
The real problem isn't overloaded centers -- it's the 85% who never reach them. Centers are overloaded with the wrong patients. The right patients (undiagnosed) are sitting in general practice with incorrect diagnoses.
Commercial imperative. You just launched [drug]. Every undiagnosed patient is lost revenue. The diagnostic bottleneck is your biggest commercial problem -- Patient Finder is the fix.
The Pitch Line
"Patient Finder doesn't add to the queue. It builds an alternative diagnostic pathway -- identifying high-probability patients in general care, supporting local diagnosis, and only routing complex cases to specialist centers. 85% of your patients don't know they're your patients. We fix that without breaking the infrastructure."
Encounters
Frank Schoening, Bayer -- ATTR-CM / BEYONTTRA context. Feb 2026. Outcome: pending re-engagement.
"This sounds like a marketing expense, not market expansion"
Expected frequently -- category confusion
ROI / Budget
The Objection
"How is this different from DTC awareness campaigns? We already spend on disease awareness."
Why They Say It
Conflating Patient Finder with DTC marketing. They've been burned by expensive awareness campaigns with poor ROI. Budget holders want to slot this into existing marketing spend.
Optimal Response
DTC = awareness among the already-diagnosed. Patient Finder = finding the undiagnosed. Completely different funnel position.
This is market expansion, not market share. DTC fights for share of diagnosed patients. Patient Finder grows the total addressable market by converting undiagnosed to diagnosed.
Revenue model proves it. We take 8-12% of first-year drug revenue per patient found. If we don't find patients, you don't pay. DTC agencies charge regardless of results.
Budget line: commercial/market access, not marketing. Position this as revenue generation, not brand spend. Different budget, different decision maker.
The Pitch Line
"Disease awareness campaigns talk to people who already suspect they're sick. We find the ones who don't. That's not marketing -- that's market creation. And we only get paid when it works."
"How do we know your assessment is clinically accurate enough?"
Expected from medical affairs
Trust / Proof
The Objection
"We can't send patients to specialists based on an app's recommendation. What's the clinical evidence?"
Why They Say It
Legitimate clinical concern. Medical affairs and KOLs need evidence. Also a gatekeeping tactic -- easier to say "not enough evidence" than to champion something new internally.
Optimal Response
CE-marked, clinical-grade. Ada's assessment is a certified Class IIa medical device under EU MDR. Not a wellness app.
millions of assessments so far. Proven at scale with organic traffic. This isn't a prototype.
Condition-specific validation. We can run a targeted validation study for the specific condition -- e.g., retrospective analysis against confirmed diagnoses. Offer a pilot.
We're not replacing doctors. We're triaging and routing. The physician still makes the diagnosis. Ada increases the probability that the right patient ends up in front of the right doctor.
The Pitch Line
"Ada is a CE-marked Class IIa medical device processing millions of assessments so fara year. We don't diagnose -- we ensure the right patients reach the right specialists. Happy to run a condition-specific validation with your medical team."
"How do you handle patient data and privacy?"
Almost every conversation
Privacy / Data
The Objection
"We can't be seen directing patients or accessing their health data. Regulatory and reputational risk."
Why They Say It
Real compliance concern. Pharma companies are hypervigilant about patient data post-GDPR and HIPAA. Legal teams will flag this immediately.
Optimal Response
Pharma never touches patient data. Ada operates the patient-facing experience. Pharma sponsors the program but has no access to individual patient information.
GDPR/HIPAA compliant by design. Data stays with Ada. Pharma receives only aggregate, anonymized metrics (patients assessed, referred, diagnosed).
Patients consent explicitly. Every user goes through informed consent. No data sharing without opt-in.
Ada is a medical device company, not an ad platform. We're regulated, audited, and held to clinical standards. This isn't Facebook health ads.
The Pitch Line
"You never see patient data. Ada runs the clinical assessment, patients consent, and you get aggregate outcomes. We're a regulated medical device company -- your compliance team will find this is cleaner than most of your existing vendor relationships."
"What about OpenAI / Google / other AI health players?"
Occasional -- from tech-aware execs
Competitive
The Objection
"OpenAI is working with Sanofi on Muse. Google has health AI. Why do we need Ada?"
Why They Say It
Big tech halo effect. Execs read headlines about AI in healthcare and assume the big players will do everything. Also used as leverage in negotiations.
Optimal Response
Different problem. OpenAI Muse = trial recruitment (finding patients for studies). Ada Patient Finder = finding undiagnosed patients for commercial drugs. Adjacent but different.
Regulatory moat. Ada has CE marking as a medical device. OpenAI and Google do not. In the EU, you cannot direct patient care pathways without medical device certification.
15M organic assessments. Ada already has the patient flow. OpenAI/Google would need to build or buy this. We have a decade head start.
Clinical-grade vs. general purpose. ChatGPT gives health information. Ada provides clinically validated symptom assessment with care navigation. Regulators see these very differently.
The Pitch Line
"OpenAI finds patients for clinical trials. We find patients for your commercial drugs. They're a general AI company experimenting in health. We're a certified medical device company with millions of assessments so farand a decade of clinical validation. Different league."
"8-12% of first-year revenue is too expensive"
Expected in commercial negotiations
ROI / Budget
The Objection
"Your pricing model is aggressive. We can't justify that cost per patient."
Why They Say It
Standard procurement pushback. They'll compare against CPA from other channels. Also, some may not understand the lifetime value calculation.
Optimal Response
It's 8-12% of FIRST-YEAR only. For chronic conditions, patients stay on therapy for years or life. Year 2+ is 100% margin for you. The real cost is single-digit percent of lifetime value.
Performance-based. You pay only for patients who are actually found and diagnosed. Zero risk if it doesn't work. Compare that to $50M+ disease awareness campaigns with uncertain ROI.
These patients don't exist in your funnel today. This isn't cannibalization -- it's pure incremental revenue. The alternative isn't a cheaper channel; it's zero.
Anchor to drug economics. For a $100K/year specialty drug, 8-12% = $8-12K. Patient acquisition cost in rare disease via traditional channels often exceeds $50K+ per diagnosed patient.
The Pitch Line
"You're paying 8-12% of year one for a patient who stays on therapy for a decade. That's under 1% of lifetime value. And you only pay when we deliver. Name another channel with that ROI guarantee."
"This could be seen as pharma-directed patient steering"
Expected from legal/compliance
Regulatory
The Objection
"Regulators might view this as pharma directing patients to specific treatments. Anti-kickback, Sunshine Act implications."
Why They Say It
Legal/compliance departments are risk-averse by design. Any new patient-facing program gets scrutinized. This is often a speed bump, not a dealbreaker -- but needs clear answers.
Optimal Response
Ada navigates to diagnosis, not to a specific drug. The clinical pathway ends at "you should see a specialist for this condition." Treatment choice remains with the physician.
No drug branding in the patient experience. Users interact with Ada's medical assessment. They don't see pharma branding or drug names during the assessment.
Pharma sponsors disease awareness, not drug promotion. This is unbranded disease education and care navigation -- a well-established and compliant model.
We've structured this with regulatory counsel. Happy to have our compliance teams align. The structure is designed specifically to avoid anti-kickback and promotional concerns.
The Pitch Line
"We navigate patients to a diagnosis, not a prescription. The physician chooses the treatment. This is unbranded disease education through a certified medical device -- the cleanest regulatory structure in patient finding."